Georgia Court Asking Some VERY Interesting Questions Regarding Obama’s Qualification To Be President

I got a tip about this article from one of my friends Truth Unites… and Divides. It is very much worth taking a look at.

I’ve written a couple of articles on Obama and his birth certificate and Social Security Number maladies, but have largely refrained because I am neither a lawyer, nor a document expert, nor someone who has the ability to subpoena or even view the actual original documents at issue.

But check out the facts that are being presented in a Georgia quote about whether Obama was legally able to run for president according to that state’s laws (which appears in the context of the following article at the very end):

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday’s hearing in GA.

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

p11. Barack Obama’s Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia….

For the record, I have no idea what Social Security Number Barack Obama is using. I frankly hope he doesn’t know mine, either! But if in fact Barack Obama is using a bogus Connecticut Social Security Number given that his own claim is that he was born in Hawaii, that in and of itself should be utterly devastating and he should be forced to either resign or be removed from office immediately.

Two AT writers attended yesterday’s hearing in Georgia over President Obama’s eligibility for the presidential ballot. Cindy Simpson writes:

President Obama has a habit of turning his back and walking away from those with whom he disagrees, as recently discovered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Professor John Lott, in an interview with Teri O’Brien, recalled similar experiences with Obama while at the University of Chicago.

On January 26, I was in Atlanta to observe the hearings on the challenges to Obama’s eligibility to appear on Georgia’s 2012 ballot. In two previous American Thinker blog posts, “The Birthers Went Down to Georgia” and “Georgia on Obama’s Mind,” I described the content and history of the cases.

The courtroom was crowded to maximum capacity; however, the table for the defense was notably vacant. The defendant, Obama himself, was also not in attendance, even though the judge last week refused to quash the subpoena requesting his presence. Judge Michael Malihi, in his denial, stated:

…Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant’s motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority…evidencing why his attendance is “unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony… [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary…”

Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned of his absence in a defiant and last-minute move on the afternoon of January 25, via a letter he sent to Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp. He requested that Kemp “bring an end to this baseless, costly and unproductive hearing by withdrawing the original hearing request as improvidently issued.” Jablonski’s letter concluded: “We await your taking the requested action, and as we do so, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26.”

A few hours later, the blogosphere lit up with the news that Secretary Kemp had responded with a letter stating that the hearings would continue on the 26th as scheduled, and concluded with the warning: “…if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

And the hearings did proceed, although approximately 20 minutes late, after Judge Malihi requested a pre-hearing conference with all of the attorneys in his chambers.

Orly Taitz also ably presented her evidence regarding the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number, even though she was rushed by the judge on several occasions, shortening her planned two-hour presentation by half.

After only two hours for three hearings that most spectators had expected to take several, Judge Malihi asked the attorneys to file briefs by February 5 and dismissed the courtroom. No date has been set for his decision.

Rumors began flying around the blogosphere almost immediately — primarily one that the judge had informed the attorneys, in the pre-hearing conference, that he intended to enter a default judgment against Obama. If true, that would essentially mean that yet another action against Obama’s eligibility has resulted in no decision on the merits.

Under Georgia law, the Secretary of State had properly deferred the ballot challenges to the OSAH for the court’s opinion, and the determination of whether or not Obama’s name will appear on the Georgia ballot ultimately rests with the Secretary.

Regardless of the outcome in Georgia, it appears that Obama has openly shown his disregard for the laws of that state. According to Irion, Obama has also “decided that he is above the Courts, the law, and the Constitution. He has just indicated…that he is not subject to their authority. This is the true story from today, yet almost no one will report it.”

Obama has deliberately turned his back, and walked on by.

And most of the media has followed along right behind him.

Alan P. Halbert also attended the hearing and writes:

Obama Declares he is Above Georgia’s Election Laws

Several back-to-back hearings were held on Thursday the 26th of January 2012 on the status of whether President Obama is Constitutionally eligible under Article II Sec 1 requirements as a “Natural Born Citizen” and appear on the Georgia primary presidential ballot. This came about by several Citizens filing challenges to Obama being placed on primary ballot with the Georgia Secretary of State Mr. Brian P. Kemp in accordance with Georgia election law. Obama had been given an Order to appear along with the production of documents by the presiding Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear the matter, the Honorable Michael Malihi. Obama and his Attorney chose not to comply with the Court’s Order, provide the documents, present a defense or attend the hearing. Obama’s attorney Mr. Jablonski chose instead to send a letter to Mr. Kemp requesting that the hearing be dismissed, as they claimed the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that they would not attend if it was held as scheduled. Mr. Kemp responded with his regrets that they decided to forgo the Hearing and warned them “they did so at their own peril” if they failed to offer evidence disputing the allegation of the Citizens complaints.

The election of a President is done through the compilation and aggregation of the individual State Election returns which have the responsibility under the Constitution to conduct Elections. It most assuredly is a Citizen’s Right to inquire into the Constitutional qualification of any Candidate to hold any elected office in Georgia whether it is a State or Federal Office which includes the office of President. This is also the case with the other forty nine States as well which have similar Statutes.

The evidence that was presented was varied and ran the gamut of the factual legal arguments to evidence of a personal nature attributed personally to Obama. Mr. Van Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation presented the facts of Minor V. Happersett and portrayed it front and center as to the definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” and as definitive from a unanimous ruling by SCOTUS in 1875 — the legal heart of the matter. An Amicus Brief was filed in the case by Leo Donofrio Esq. and would be considered an authoritative discussion of the natural born citizen issue and its common law lineage. Each attorney (three in all) in due course presented their cases then rested as the next one presented the case; it appeared well coordinated among all attorneys.

Most all of the testimony was given by expert witnesses, except for the foundation testimony of the citizens that brought the actions; document experts on the authenticity of Obama’s Birth Certificate, the Social Security number he uses (used on tax returns) and his and his mother’s passport records. A private investigator testified that his Social Security Number (SSN) was originally issued to a deceased individual born in 1890, and was issued from Connecticut a State he is never been known to inhabit.

Orly Taitz, the last attorney to present her case, has been the subject of considerable criticism of her character by various persons during her four year ordeal stretching back to 2008 when she started down this road with Obama. She drew considerable ire and vitriol from Mr. Jablonski, in his letter to Mr. Kemp requesting the dismissal of the hearing. Her case was developed with credible skill however lacked the polish of an experienced litigator. Though appeared solid in evidentiary value and her presentation of the facts were damning. It was probably for the personal nature of her inquiry of Obama and his credentials which drew such criticism from others along the way and Obama’s attorney in particular.

She presented through direct testimony the opinions of several document experts that declared the Birth Certificate presented by Obama last April as having the hallmarks of an assembled or false document, as it was layered similar to what would be produced with modern computer software, and not a simple copy of an official record from 1961. He also discussed anomalies of certain character spacing which would not have been present or possible with the typewriters of the 1960’s. This layering issue was further verified by another expert witness for document scanning technology and his conclusion was that his long form birth certificate appeared to be falsified as well by certain abnormal patterns appearing in his Birth Certificate.

The compilation of this information was then verified by another expert witness, a retired Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigator. He testified that the anomalies seen on Obama’s records, Social Security Number and birth certificate which had different Registrars for similar certificates that were issued within days of one another was difficult to explain. The out of Sequence birth certificate issuance numbers which were lower than Obama’s, though issued several days after his birth, was difficult to explain as these numbers are issued sequentially. There were issues with the official embossed seal that were not accurate for similar records issued during this time period in Hawaii, his birthplace. He testified that these anomalies rose to the level that would require further investigation, possible arrest and prosecution for documents that had the cumulative defects that Obama’s exhibited in similar investigation of false documents.

However, what I find most baffling was the decision of Obama and his Attorney choosing to be absent from the proceedings. However, Judge Malihi conducted the hearing in a manner of decorum and was an honest presentation of the facts. Though was hard to guard against the bias of the parties without Obama and his Council being present.

Many people who are unfamiliar with the Legal System do not know that the hearing or trial level is known as the “trier of the facts”. Only matters of Law can be appealed, not the facts that are developed, presented or testified to in any hearing or trial. Only when there is overwhelming evidence of malfeasance, gross perjury or the denial of the admissibility of probative evidence is a new trial or hearing ordered when a mistake of law has been found on appeal. As a practical matter appellate courts rarely order such remedy, when ordered it is believed that the defendant did not have his constitutional right to face his accusers at the trier of the facts level!

Since Obama and his attorney chose not to be present a defense and dispute the evidence that was presented, this can be taken as an admission that all of the evidence admitted were indeed facts and may not be disputed at a later time on appeal! The irony of this course is that Obama is declaring that the court has no Jurisdiction in this matter and will appeal as a matter of law though these damning facts may very well stand! It also gives the impression that he considers himself above the law — Georgia’s. We have a plethora of data points on the sequestering of all of Obama’s records and bona fides which he has spent millions of dollars to keep out the public’s hands for the last four years. After this hearing we may eventually know why.

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

p11. Barack Obama’s Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia….

Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.

This is an important story, if for no other reason than that we should finally be able to know for certain the issue of Obama’s elegibility to be president.

Like this:

Related

This entry was posted on January 27, 2012 at 12:43 pm and is filed under Barack Obama, Conservative Issues, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

16 Responses to “Georgia Court Asking Some VERY Interesting Questions Regarding Obama’s Qualification To Be President”

Millions of people have errors in their Social Security numbers, and millions have multiple social security numbers caused mainly by data entry errors by Social Security Administration clerks over the years:

It is possible that some credit score somewhere has my SSN messed up. But I have never EVER in my life provided a fake SSN. Obama apparently may not be able to say the same thing because what may well be a fraudulent Social Security Number seems to appear in SEVERAL official documents that would have been provided by Obama himself (“Did I give you a phony Connecticut SSN? My bad!”).

I just read a piece that indicates that the State of Georgia is not in your “no one in Congress gives a damn” realm. Apparently the verdict has been communicated to the lawyers that the Fraud-in-Chief is not going to be allowed to appear on the ballot in Georgia.

The articles show that SOME people who have false SSNs are frauds, but that many are not.

There has been no verdict in the Georgia case. In fact, both sides have until Feb. 5 to file briefs. And it is an ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT. It does not issue verdicts. It makes recommendations. In this case it makes a recommendation to the Georgia Attorney General, but it hasn’t yet.

Getting back to SSNs. They are irrelevant to the issue of Natural Born Citizenship of course. Many people who have committed fraud with their SSNs are Natural Born Citizens. So the whole presentation about the SSN being allegedly forged was a waste of the court’s time since it was only supposed to act on the NBC matter.

IF you believe that Obama’s SSN was forged, then you have every right to write to contact your congressman and the heads of the Congressional and Senatorial committees that administer the Social Security Administration and ask that they investigate. They, of course, have the right to say no. Why would they? Because simply having a wrong SSN is not evidence of fraud because of the mistakes. What you would need is evidence that it was USED in a fraud. I haven’t seen any evidence of that.

You appear to be accepting as FACT that Obama has in fact been using a false SSN. So you are actually way ahead of me in concluding the case.

If you would kindly re-read my article, I stated quite clearly that I have NO IDEA what Obama’s SSN is or whether Obama has used a bogus Connecticut SSN.

I read a news article that the Georgia judge had briefed the lawyers as to what was going to happen next, and that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General were going to be moving. I didn’t save that article (since it described a future event and I generally prefer to wait and see if such things happen) and couldn’t re-locate it. But here’s a gist:

At the beginning of yesterday’s hearing to determine the legal and Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama for placement on the State of Georgia ballot in November, Judge Michael Malihi was said to have read “the last paragraph of [Obama] Attorney Michael Jablonski’s letter” to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. And in the barely 2 hour proceedings which reviewed 3 lawsuits demanding Obama not appear on that ballot, this might have been the most significant “statement” made by the otherwise reserved Malihi. (1)

Like Obama, Jablonski was a no-show in the Georgia courtroom, leaving Obama represented by no counsel at the proceeding.

And although the judge adjourned the hearing with no decision, no ruling, in fact nothing more than a “thank you” to the participants, the last paragraph of Jablonski’s letter states “We await your taking the requested action and as we do, we will, of course, suspend further participation in these proceedings, including the hearing scheduled for January 26th.” (2)

Well Obama had been subpoenaed to appear in that courtroom. The subpoena had been specifically and without reservation upheld by Judge Malihi just 6 days earlier. So Obama was in obvious violation of the court’s order.

So maybe, just maybe Judge Malihi read the final words of Jablonski’s hyper arrogant, “we don’t believe your little state or your silly hearing are worth our time” letter for the purpose of reading into the record the fact that it was indeed the decision of Obama and his attorney to NOT attend and to NOT honor legal subpoenas.

And if that is the case, it means Malihi is clearing the decks for either a default judgment against the president, or the implementation of a legal remedy of some sort for Obama’s self-important refusal to appear or even respond to the proceeding with counsel.

Naturally it would take an attorney to decipher any “legal” significance in Malihi’s actions, but through his past rulings the judge has made it abundantly clear that he will follow the laws of the state of Georgia to the letter and accept no grandstanding or phony arguments from either side, not even from a president.

And it is against the law to ignore a subpoena, perhaps all the more so when the judge himself refused to allow Obama’s earlier request that the subpoena be quashed.

It might be significant that Georgia Secretary of State Kemp backed Malihi to the hilt in his response to Michael Jablonski’s letter, telling the lawyer “…If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.” (3)

In short, though you and your client clearly don’t think much of our state or its laws, we will conduct the business of both just as though you were mere mortals rather than privileged characters.

When will Judge Malihi issue a ruling and what weight of law will it carry? Attorneys for both sides have until February 5th to present additional evidence for their claims. Soon after that we will know how determined the State of Georgia is in seeing to it their laws are obeyed…even by a president.

Now, you are saying it is not only possible but actually PROBABLE that Obama has been using a fake SSN without “fraud.” Could you please name another American president who has similarly done so??? I’d like to know.

I’ll also recite a portion of the article that I focused on in my own introduction to the article:

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday’s hearing in GA.

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425

This does not sound like a passive issue; a senior DHS official is providing evidence that OBAMA IS USING a fake SSN. That IS fraud if true. I have NEVER used a fake SSN. Have you? And please explain how if you’ve done so it wasn’t fraud for you to deliberately provide a fake SSN.

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

p11. Barack Obama’s Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia….

I have already stated that I don’t know whether this is true or not, and that I am very interested in seeing how this is resolved in a court that FINALLY demands these evidences be actually considered and examined. I’m looking at YOU because you very much seem to be saying that even if all of the above is true it doesn’t mean anything to you and you will continue to defend your messiah.

So it clearly doesn’t bother you that the man you voted for may very well be a fraud who was elected in violation of the laws of the United States of America.

And I’M supposed to leave in shame?

You are the DEFINITION of shame.

Also, no, if Obama wins, I’m not going anywhere. Rather, I shall start living life thinking like a Democrat, i.e., how can I get as much government benefits and become as much of a burden on the state as I possibly can???

And I hope you have “the decency” not to criticize that, because I’ll only be doing what you and your vile party have said is my Marx-given right.

”Adoption” rules out original birth certificate, check out this for yourself. http://tmusso.com/us_records.html
One reference to the subject. Social Security No. I got one when first a Widow in 1981 from Australia Government. I am sure the one I have now is from when I first officially was compelled to look for permanent work. They disregarded any work I did between 1981 to 1992, when my youngest turned 16 years.. Laws are quiet different from country to country, and adoption was handled by our State Government in 1965 when I was forced into surrendering my first born infant. We were told no longer we would regard ourselves as ‘parent,; & forget.. I wandered if SS American Nos are recycled?

There are a large number of people who hate Obama and are willing to testify to anything. When nothing happens, they wonder why. But it is because it is well known that there have been many lies from the birthers. For example, they claimed that Obama’s grandmother said that he was born in Kenya–when she said right on the tape that he was born in Hawaii.

Now the people who testified that there is something wrong with Obama’s birth certificate are not members of any recognized forensic document organization. And, guess what, HAWAII–which is the expert on whether or not Hawaii documents are forged—has never said that there is anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate., In fact, THREE Republican (and several Democrat) officials in Hawaii have repeatedly stated in writing that the facts on Obama’s birth certificate are accurate.

As for Obama having “used” a fraudulent Social Security number. Y0ou do not have any proof of this whatsover. All that exists is birther research showing that the SS number from Darien CT exists in his file. Well, that can be caused by a typographical error. There were MILLIONS of errors.

As far as we know, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, George Bush, Bill Clinton and all any any presidents with Social Security numbers may have had errors in them too. There were MILLIONS of errors.

You have the absolute right to vote against Obama because of the errors in his Social Security number, but there will not be legal action against him unless it can be can showed that he actually used the number and that he created it and that it was not the result of an error.

Obama’s lawyer has until Feb. 5 to file a brief in this case and after Feb. 5 either the judge or the Attorney General of Hawaii is virtually certain to rule that Obama’s name should be on the ballot because he was born in Hawaii and every US citizen born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. Only naturalized US citizens are not Natural Born US Citizens.

For the record, John McCain was attacked by the left for having been born in Panama. HE PUT THE ISSUE TO REST BY RELEASING HIS FULL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Obama could have done the same, but for some reason he refused to do it.

I get the sense from you that you are every bit as determined to slavishly defend Obama as the Obama haters are to rabidly attack him. You clearly don’t CARE what the evidence is. At worst it amounts to one rabid dog who hates Obama no matter what fighting another rabid dog who loves Obama no matter what.

When Nixon was a slimeball, he could have stayed in office. But Republicans turned against him and he was forced out. Democrats simply lack that virtue.

I don’t have a lot of stuff on the “birth certificate” on my blog. I’ve written about three articles on it including the one you’re commenting upon. But I did preserve an article that had this to say about Obama’s Hawaiin birth certificate which refutes what you are now saying:

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.

Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie’s spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for an interview with the governor.

Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: “You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?”

In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have “political implications” for the next presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”

Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives.

“It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down,” Abercrombie said.

For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records, implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered about the president’s birth and early life may damage his chance for re-election.

“If there is a political agenda (regarding Obama’s birth certificate), then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president,” he said.

So far, the only birth document available on Obama is a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth that first appeared on the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. It was posted by two purportedly independent websites that have displayed a strong partisan bias for Obama – Snopes.com released the COLB in June 2008, and FactCheck.org published photographs of the document in August 2008.

WND previously reported the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the COLB posted on the Internet by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org.

WND has reported that in 1961, Obama’s grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.

Similarly, the newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since they could have been triggered by the grandparents registering the birth as Hawaiian, even if the baby was born elsewhere.

Moreover, WND has documented that the address reported in the newspaper birth announcements was the home of the grandparents.

WND also has reported that Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment in Honolulu, even after he was supposedly married to Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, and that Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of the baby’s birth to attend the University of Washington in Seattle.

Dunham did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in June 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

Conceivably, the yet undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has discovered may have come from the grandparents registering Obama’s birth, an event that would have triggered both the newspaper birth announcements and availability of a Certification of Live Birth, even if no long-form birth certificate existed.

WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.

It doesn’t sound to me like that issue had been resolved in any meaningful or decent way in Hawaii. Even the governor OF THE STATE couldn’t find a birth certificate after diligent search.

If you have evidence that any of the Republicans have issues with their SSNs, GO TO A COURT AND PROVE IT. But otherwise you are far more despicable for making insinuations than are the people you are demonizing who are offering ACTUAL EVIDENCE IN COURT. That said, I have now already repeatedly provided just some of the evidence that Obama may very well have used a bogus SSN in a fraudulent manner (and how in the hell can you use a bogus SSN in an ethical manner anyway?). Your “As far as we know” thing is despicable crap, because you are equating your rumors with evidence that has been presented in a court of law. If you think the two are equivalent, you are beyond sorely mistaken.

This issue doesn’t get to be decided in Hawaii. Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way. Georgia is going to decide this case by the laws of the state of Georgia that Obama has ignored and flouted.

Re: “For the record, John McCain was attacked by the left for having been born in Panama. HE PUT THE ISSUE TO REST BY RELEASING HIS FULL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Obama could have done the same, but for some reason he refused to do it.”

Answer: McCain never released his birth certificate. The one that is online is not his. There is no reports that he showed it to the Senate either; they simply accepted his word that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone on the naval base at the family hospital. See if you can find a McCain birth certificate online that says that. )The one online says “Colon Hospital”–which is actually NOT in the Canal Zone.

Obam released the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii in 2008. That is the short-form birth certificate with the fancy name Certification of Live Birth. That is the one that THOUSANDS of people in Hawaii use to get their US passports every year. In addition to Obama releasing his official birth certificate (which no president or presidential candidate except Eisenhower had done before), the FACTS on Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii were confirmed by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii (and by Democrats too, but later), and further confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961,

Despite these facts BIRTHERS continued to lie, claiming that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother had said that he was born in Kenya (She said repeatedly that he was born in HAWAII, and in another interview said that the first that her family had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii). One guy, a convicted felon, said that he had gone to Kenya and gotten Obama’s birth certificate there. The guy never even proved that he had gone to Kenya—but birthers believed him.

Not one Republican candidate for president or former candidate for president has showed his or her birth certificate, but birthers did not care. They said that Obam should show his birth certificate simply because other birthers were willing to lie about the grandmother and about having hone to Kenya and gotten Obama’s birth certificate there.

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.”

Answer: That of course is a BIRTHER report, and it is not true. Abercrombie never said any such thing.

It takes a person particularly gullible to believe it, when TWO Republican officials stated in writing that the original birth certificate of Obama was in the files. That is two. There is, of course, a third. The unnamed clerk who filled out Obama’s short form birth certificate from the document in the files–that is how the short-form birth certificate process works. So, three.

And more recently there has been a fourth, the current Director of Health of Hawaii, who stated in writing that she had seen the original birth certificate in the process of being copied from the original to the copy on security paper–and that the copy was accurate.

But birthers believe the birther site report that said that Abercrombie said that he could not find it (which he did not say), despite the fact that they do not quote the actual words, nor did they have access to a transcript, and they did not for sure call Abercrombie up and ask him to confirm or deny the statement. Birther sites lead their followers by the nose.

He’s the one who stated for the record that he could not find Obama’s birth certificate after an official search. As I documented.

You are now a documented liar about this being a “birther report.” You should have checked the link I provided. The story comes right out of the uber-liberal Honolulu Star Advertiser from January 18, 2011.

THAT newspaper reported:

Q: You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plans to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?

A: I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.

(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)

It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down …

…What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case.

If there is a political agenda then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president.

So let me quote Joe Wilson to you, Ellen: YOU LIE!

You’re right and wrong about John McCain. BUT YOU ARE MOSTLY WRONG. He did in FACT show his birth certificate to a Washington Post (the WaPo being a liberal paper of record, btw) reporter, who documented that McCain was IN FACT born on the submarine base (US terrirorty):

“John McCain, widely reported to have been born in the Panama Canal Zone in the Coco Solo Naval Hospital, COULD NOT have been born in Coco Solo Hospital and probably wasn’t born in the Canal Zone at all.”
–News Busters blog, Feb. 21, 2008.

Some bloggers are questioning John McCain’s right to run for the presidency on the basis of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone. They have produced “evidence” showing that that the hospital where the Arizona senator says he was born was not built until 1941–five years after McCain’s birth. A review of the archival record shows that there was a small hospital at the Coco Solo submarine base in 1936 and also reveals the name of the U.S. Navy physician who signed McCain’s birth certificate.

The Facts
I dealt with the constitutional debate on whether McCain is a “natural born citizen” in a previous post. (According to the Constitution, only “natural born citizens” have the right to run for the presidency.”) The senator bases his eligibility claim on the fact that he was (1) born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone at a time when it was effectively under U.S. sovereignty and (2) both of his parents were U.S. citizens.

As I reported earlier, the McCain campaign has declined to publicly release the senator’s birth certificate. But a senior campaign official showed me a copy of his birth certificate issued by the “family hospital” in the Coco Solo submarine base. (McCain’s grandfather commanded the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in 1936; his father was the executive officer of a submarine based in Coco Solo.)

The birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. Irvine. I have now checked that name against the Naval Register for 1936, and I find that William Lorne Irvine was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, during that time period. You can see the entry here. I think this effectively disposes of any remaining doubts that McCain was born inside the Canal Zone.

The senator’s 96-year-old mother, Roberta McCain, recalled the occasion in a Mother’s Day video available here. She recalled “the 27 bottles of Scotch” stacked on a table of the nearby Officers’ Club, gifts to her husband in celebration of the arrival of “the sweetest, nicest child I have ever known.”

The Pinocchio Test
There is a valid constitutional debate about what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they decided that only “natural born” citizens should be eligible for the presidency. But there is no foundation for the rumors that have surfaced on the Internet that John McCain was born in the Panamanian city of Colon, rather than inside the U.S.-administered Panama Canal Zone.

So now I have YOU on the record being “a birther” and accusing John McCain of having been born in Colon Hospital rather than on US terriritory. I have you on the record being every bit as vile as the people you label as “vile” are being.

If Barack Obama had done the same thing and taken his birth certificate to a CONSERVATIVE source such as The Wall Street Journal, he could have spared himself a ton of misery. If he ever really had a legit birth cert at all, that is. Your analogy fails: Obama showed his birth certificate to the radical political left and they say it’s fine and we don’t believe it for good reason. McCain showed his birth certificte to one of the most liberal newspapers in the entire country. AND YOU STILL DON’T ACCEPT IT. So just why in the hell should conservatives accept the word of some Hawaii liberal when YOU are on the record refusing to believe your very own source (the liberal WaPo)??

I’m going to block you, Ellen. I’m going to block you because a) you’ve had more than your fair say on this issue; and b) because you have clearly proven yourself to be a hypocrite by your very own standards. You started out demonizing those who question Obama AND YOU’VE DEMONSTRATED THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR IS FINE BY YOUR VERY OWN BEHAVIOR; you have told documented lies; and d) You have clearly revealed yourself to be a true ideologue who DOES NOT CARE what evidence there is against Obama.

I’m frankly through wasting my time with you.

I’ll close this by (AGAIN) documenting some of the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE at issue BEING RESOLVED IN A COURT OF LAW:

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday’s hearing in GA.

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

p11. Barack Obama’s Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia….

Eden, just gotta say that I have been following you, and you give me hope. I’m so glad there is someone who knows what the hell they are talking about fighting the good, right fight against laziness, idiocy, and deceit. If I lived near you, I’d buy you a drink/meal/something.